Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'd argue it's more problematic than that. If that video, in fact, has purposeful errors, then following WSL's death there will be a point when students who don't realize this will attempt to learn from him as a master source in those videos. They will catch some of the inserted errors, but others, some will miss and think are refinements. They will base some bit of their learning on that misunderstanding, and will someday become instructors. Over generations of instructors, the "correct" information gets a bit diluted, while the "errors" are preserved perfectly in video. This process won't happen immediately, but at some point it probably will happen. The veneration that is common for the "old masters" nearly ensures this sort of problem with videos that contain errors. The same probably happened, though perhaps to a lesser extent, with the manuals LFJ mentioned.It's bad idea to put up wrong information into the public domain. After you die, people will criticize you not knowing the correct information. It will be your life time reputation that you may take the risk.
For example, if you public a "Taiji for health" book, even if you may understand the "Taiji application", but since you didn't include Taiji application into your book, people will assume that you don't understand any "Taiji application". IMO, it's better not to put out any information instead of to put out some information that will hurt you later on.
You may hide as much information as you may like to. After your death, people will say that you just don't know anything.
I'll call that "cheating".If that video, in fact, has purposeful errors, ...
I agree, except that I'll teach everything I have once students are ready. I'm there to give them the best chance I can, and won't hold back anything I think could help them.I'll call that "cheating".
My teacher won't teach me any counters for his favor technique "leg twisting". At least he would be honest to let me know. He won't teach me any wrong counter that won't work.
It's better to be "honest" IMO. There is nothing wrong for a teacher to honestly tell his students that there are some information that he just won't teach. If you have spent all your life time to develop some "door guarding" skill, you just don't want to teach your students how to counter it.
If you want to teach, you should teach 100%. Otherwise, you can take all your secret into your grave. This "intentional error video" idea is wrong, wrong, and still wrong.
Since some of those videos appeared to be from seminars, that is odd. It would seem counter-productive in the extreme to say and demonstrate intentional errors during a seminar, then leave the local instructor to deal with students saying, "But at the seminar...."Regarding the OP. It came about in a series of threads when people would point to a video of WSL, say demonstrating a form, to make a point or counter a claim by a couple of people who study WSLVT via PB's method. Basically "oh I can explain that because the video has WSL adding an error intentionally to 'guard the method'.". The same was applied to interviews. It could be raised when someone tries to show that there is little apparent practical difference between say WSL's method and Yip Ching's. As an example, I recall a WSL video mentioning that part of chi sau was to develop touch sensitivity. This was dismissed as an intentional error and if you use videos to suggest that what PB teaches is based on the documented fact WSL worked to refine VT to better function with PB's amputation...
The thing is it's a bit illogical for a few reasons.
First the claim is almost entirely justifies the fact by using Chinese Tradition as an excuse. What makes that even more odd other Chinese traditions are dismissed (such as lineages passing through in one's oldest son.) There is old saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Second WSL, unlike the Chinese Masters who would conceal things from the uninitiated, went on a massive self-promotion run giving seminars and helping promote the schools of his students in Europe, Oceania and SE Asia and eventually Mainland China. Promoting one's art so openly and globally while at the same time engaging in obfuscation of what you demonstrate is contradictory. It would make more sense to simply not address certain methods in the seminar.
Third WSL would not ignore his legacy. He was a smart man and not ignorant of the impact of technology as evidenced by not simply allowing his seminars to be filled but having professionally produced videos of him demonstrating the forms etc. One consequence of technology is that it is saved for posterity. If there are errors there, intentional or not, the legacy is damaged. This is something else the Chinese Masters of the past did not have to deal with.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Pretty much. Also problematic when one of your filmed seminars was instructing the PLA. Something tells me Bejing would have been upset with that.Since some of those videos appeared to be from seminars, that is odd. It would seem counter-productive in the extreme to say and demonstrate intentional errors during a seminar, then leave the local instructor to deal with students saying, "But at the seminar...."
They answered that before and the short answer is "because that isn't what is passed down by PB. Then you raise the fact that PB's own biography says...One might ask of those who say the video had intentional errors, how do they know that to be the case?
After visits with various teachers, he found, in January 1983, Wong Shun Leung. Sifu Wong accepted the ambitious German than students in the traditional sense. He sat down seriously dealing with the problem of a missing hand and put the training in terms of it.
There is possibility that the instructor didn't know his stuff. When proved to be wrong, he just said that he had shown the wrong information in order to hide his secret.Since some of those videos appeared to be from seminars, that is odd.
One might ask of those who say the video had intentional errors, how do they know that to be the case?
You guys know I can be quick to disagree with LFJ, but I believe his basic point is right. A lot of Chinese Sifus of that period did conceal portions of their system from outsiders and casual students, and did deliberately insert errors into their public presentations, books, and later, videos as a means of controlling who got the "real stuff".
I agree that it is a foolish and even dishonest for the many reasons stated above, but it absolutely did (and still does) happen. I discovered this myself after doing "bai-si" and becoming a disciple of my old Chinese sifu. It is unfortunate, especially, because many who never trained closely with him have a very wrong idea of his skill and knowledge, and his many cheesy books and videos just perpetrate these errors and misconceptions!
WSL was said to be a man of (hopefully) greater integrity, but I have no reason to doubt that he may also have engaged in such practices.
I'd argue it's more problematic than that. If that video, in fact, has purposeful errors, then following WSL's death there will be a point when students who don't realize this will attempt to learn from him as a master source in those videos. They will catch some of the inserted errors, but others, some will miss and think are refinements. They will base some bit of their learning on that misunderstanding, and will someday become instructors. Over generations of instructors, the "correct" information gets a bit diluted, while the "errors" are preserved perfectly in video. This process won't happen immediately, but at some point it probably will happen. The veneration that is common for the "old masters" nearly ensures this sort of problem with videos that contain errors. The same probably happened, though perhaps to a lesser extent, with the manuals LFJ mentioned.
This process is an issue even when there aren't purposely-created errors. People try to read too much into the "old ways", rather than moving forward with the information they already have. Even if the old source is perfect, it was perfect for the art as it was at that time and may be imperfect for the art as it evolves.
It happened (and possibly still does) in some Japanese arts, as well, though from what I've heard not as ubiquitously. Your second paragraph is the key to me. There was a time in the past when there was a good reason for this. Now, especially with the media that preserves these inaccuracies, the "errors" can (and often will) eventually become canon in many arts.You guys know I can be quick to disagree with LFJ, but I believe his basic point is right. A lot of Chinese Sifus of that period did conceal portions of their system from outsiders and casual students, and did deliberately insert errors into their public presentations, books, and later, videos as a means of controlling who got the "real stuff".
I agree that it is a foolish and even dishonest for the many reasons stated above, but it absolutely did (and still does) happen. I discovered this myself after doing "bai-si" and becoming a disciple of my old Chinese sifu. It is unfortunate, especially, because many who never trained closely with him have a very wrong idea of his skill and knowledge, and his many cheesy books and videos just perpetrate these errors and misconceptions!
WSL was said to be a man of (hopefully) greater integrity, but I have no reason to doubt that he may also have engaged in such practices.
If it is silly, it will be easy to spot. The issue is that these don't have to be silly. They can simply be leaving out better methods, or even giving answers that seem to make sense but don't actually help anyone comprehend the principles of a technique. And when people get into venerating some old master, they often accept everything that person says or does as being "the answer". No one person ever has "the answer", and that attitude is problematic for the growth and evolution of any art or style.Of course you could test it and if it is silly change it.